Static Main Menu

Hypotheses: Meaning, Types and Sources | Social Research

Article shared by :

ADVERTISEMENTS:

After reading this article you will learn about:- 1. Meaning of Hypotheses 2. Types of Hypotheses 3. Sources.

Meaning of Hypotheses:

Once the problem to be answered in the course of research is finally instituted, the researcher may, if feasible proceed to formulate tentative solutions or answers to it. These proposed solutions or explanations are called hypotheses which the researcher is obliged to test on the basis of fact already known or which can be made known.

If such answers are not formulated, even implicitly, the researcher cannot effectively go ahead with the investigation of his problem because, in the absence of direction which hypotheses typically provide, the researcher would not know what facts to look for and what relation or order to search for amongst them.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The hypotheses guide the researcher through a bewildering Jungle of facts to see and select only those that are relevant to the problem or difficulty he proposes to solve. Collection of facts merely for the sake of collecting them will yield no fruits.

To be fruitful, one should collect such facts as are for or against some point of view or proposition. Such a point of view or proposition is the hypothesis. The task of the inquiry or research is to test its accord with facts.

Lundberg aptly observes, “The only difference between gathering data without a hypothesis and gathering them with one, is that in the latter case, we deliberately recognize the limitations of our senses and attempt to reduce their fallibility by limiting our field of investigation so as to prevent greater concentration for attention on particular aspects which past experience leads us to believe are irrelevant as insignificant for our purpose.”

Simply stated, an hypothesis helps us see and appreciate:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(1) The kind of data that need be collected in order to answer the research question and

(2) The way in which they should be organized most efficiently and meaningfully.

Webster’s New International Dictionary of English Language, 1956, defines the term “hypothesis” as “proposition, condition or principle which is assumed, perhaps without belief, in order to draw out its logical consequences and by this method to test its accord with facts which are known or may be determined.”

Cohen and Nagel bring out the value of hypothesis thus:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

“We cannot take a single step forward in any inquiry unless we begin with a suggested explanation or solution of the difficulty which originated it. Such tentative explanations are suggested to us by something in the subject-matter and by our previous knowledge. When they are formulated as propositions, they are called hypotheses.”

Once the scientist knows what his question (problem) is, he can make a guess, or a number of guesses as to its possible answers. According to Werkmeister, “The guesses he makes are the hypotheses which either solve the problems or guide him in further investigation.”

It is clear now that a hypothesis is a provisional formulation; a tentative solution of the problem posed by the scientist. ‘The scientist starts by assuming that the solution is true without, of course, personally believing in its truthfulness.

Based on this assumption, the scientist anticipates that certain logical consequences will be observed on the plane of observable events or objects. Whether these anticipations or expectations really materialize is the test of the hypothesis, its proof or disproof.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

If the hypothesis is proved, the problem of which it was a tentative solution is answered. If it is not proved, i.e., falsified owing to non-support of proof, alternative hypotheses may be formulated by the researcher. An hypothesis thus stands somewhere at the midpoint of research; from here, one can look back to the problem as also look forward to data.

The hypothesis may be stated in the form of a principle, that is, the tentative explanation or solution to the questions how? Or why? May be presented in the form of a principle that X varies with Y. The inquiry established that an empirical referent of X varies with the empirical referent of Y in a concrete observable situation (i.e., the hypothesis is proved) then the question is answered.

Hypotheses, however, may take other forms, such as intelligent guesses, conditions, propositions deduced from theories, observations and findings of other scholars etc.

Proceeding on the basis of hypotheses has been the slow and hard way of science. While some scientific conclusions and premises seem to have arisen in the mind of the investigator as if by flashes of insight, in a majority of cases the process of discovery has been a slower one.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

“The scientific imagination devises a possible solution, a hypothesis and the investigator proceeds to test it. He makes intellectual keys and then tries to see whether they fit the lock. If the hypothesis does not fit, it is rejected and another is made. The scientific workshop is full of discarded keys.”

Cohen and Nagel’s statement that one cannot take a single step forward in any inquiry without a hypothesis may well be a correct statement of the value of hypothesis in scientific investigation generally, but it hardly does justice to an important function of scientific research, i.e., the “formulation hypotheses.”

Hypotheses are not given to us readymade. Of course in fields with a highly developed theoretic structure it is reasonable to expect that most empirical studies will have at least some sharp hypotheses to be tested.

This is so especially in social sciences where there has not yet evolved a highly developed theoretic system in many areas of its subject-matter which can afford fruitful bases for hypothesis-formulation.

As such, attempts to force research into this mould are either deceitful or stultifying and hypotheses are likely to be no more than hunches as to where to look for sharper hypotheses in which case the study may be described as an intelligent fishing trip.

As a result, in the social sciences at least, a considerable quantum of research endeavour is directed understandably toward ‘making’ hypotheses rather than at testing them.

A very important type of research has as its goal, the formulation of significant hypotheses relating to a particular problem. Hence, we will do well to bear in mind that research can begin with well formulated hypotheses or it may come out with hypotheses as its end product.

Let us recapitulate the role of hypotheses for research in the words of Chaddock who summarizes it thus:

“(A hypothesis) in the scientific sense is … an explanation held after careful canvass of known facts, in full knowledge of other explanations that have been offered and with a mind open to change of view, if the facts disclosed by the inquiry warrant a different explanation. Another hypothesis as an explanation is proposed including investigation all available and pertinent data either to prove or disprove the hypothesis…. (A hypothesis) gives point to the inquiry and if founded on sufficient previous knowledge, guides the line of investigation. Without it much useless data maybe collected in the hope that nothing essential will be omitted or important data may be omitted which could have been easily included if the purpose of inquiry had been more clearly defined” and thus hypotheses are likely to be no more than hunches as to where to look for pertinent data.

An hypothesis is therefore held with the definite purpose of including in the investigating all available and pertinent data either to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

Types of Hypotheses:

There are many kinds of hypotheses the social researcher has to be working with. One type of hypotheses asserts that something is the case in a given instance; that a particular object, person or situation has a particular characteristic.

Another type of hypotheses deals with the frequency of occurrences or of association among variables; this type of hypotheses may state that X is associated with y a certain (Y) proportion of times, e.g., that urbanism tends to be accompanied by mental disease or that something is greater or lesser than some thing else in a specific setting.

Yet another type of hypotheses assert that a particular characteristic is one of the factors which determine another characteristic, i.e., S is the producer of Y (product). Hypotheses of this type are known as causal hypotheses.

Hypotheses can be classified in a variety of ways. But classification of hypotheses on the basis of their levels of abstraction is regarded as especially fruitful. Goode arid Hatt have identified three differential levels of abstraction reached by hypotheses. We shall here be starting from the lowest level of abstraction and go over to the higher ones.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(a) At the lowest level of abstraction are the hypotheses which state existence of certain empirical uniformities. Many types of such empirical uniformities are common in social research, for instance, it may be hypothesized with reference to India that in the cities men will get married between the age of 22 and 24 years.

Or, the hypotheses of this type may state that certain behaviour pattern may be expected in a specified community. Thus, hypotheses of this type frequently seem to invite scientific verification of what are called “common sense propositions,” indeed without much justification.

It has often been said by way of a criticism of such hypotheses that these are not useful in as much as they merely state what everyone seems to know already. Such an objection may however be overruled by pointing out that what everyone knows is not often put in precise terms nor is it adequately integrated into the framework of science.

Secondly, what everyone knows may well be mistaken. To put common sense ideas into precisely defined concepts and subject the proposition to test is an important task of science.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

This is particularly applicable to social sciences which are at present in their earlier stage of development. Not only social science but all sciences have found such commonsense knowledge a fruitful item of study. It was commonsense knowledge in the olden days that sun revolved round the earth. But this and many other beliefs based on commonsense have been exploded by patient, plodding, empirical checking of facts.

The monumental work, The American Soldier by Stouffer and associates was criticized in certain quarters, for it was according to them mere elaboration of the obvious. But to this study goes the credit of exploding some of the commonsense propositions and shocking many people who had never thought that what was so obvious a commonsense could be totally wrong or unfounded in fact.

(b) At a relatively higher level of abstraction are hypotheses concerned with complex ‘ideal types.’ These hypotheses aim at testing whether logically derived relationship between empirical uniformities obtain. This level of hypothesizing moves beyond the level of anticipating a simple empirical uniformity by visualizing a complex referent in society.

Such hypotheses are indeed purposeful distortions of empirical exactness and owing to their remoteness from empirical reality, these constructs are termed ‘ideal types.’ The function of such hypotheses is to create tools and formulate problems for further research in complex areas of investigation.

An example of one such hypothesis may be cited. Analyses of minority groups brought to light empirical uniformities in the behaviour of members of a wide variety of minorities. It was subsequently hypothesized that these uniformities pointed to an ‘ideal type’.

First called by H. A. Miller the ‘oppression psychosis,’ this ideal-typical construction was subsequently modified as the ‘Marginal man’ by E. Stone Quist and associates. Empirical evidence marshaled later substantiated the hypothesis, and so the concept of marginality (marginal man) has very much come to stay as a theoretic construct in social sciences, and as part of sociological theory.

(c) We now come to the class of hypotheses at the highest level of abstraction. This category of hypotheses is concerned with the relation obtaining amongst analytic variables. Such hypotheses are statements about, how one property affects other, e.g., a statement of relationship between education and social mobility or between wealth and fertility.

It is easy to see that this level of hypothesizing is not only more abstract compared to others; it is also the most sophisticated and vastly flexible mode of formulation.

This does not mean, however, that this type of hypotheses is ‘superior’ or ‘better’ than the other types. Each type of hypotheses has its own importance depending in turn upon the nature of investigation and the level of development the subject has achieved.

The sophisticated hypotheses of analytical variables owe much of their existence to the building-blocks contributed by the hypotheses existed at the lower orders of abstraction.

Sources of Hypotheses:

Hypotheses may be developed from a variety of sources. We examine here, some of the major ones.

(1) The history of sciences provides an eloquent testimony to the fact that personal and idiosyncratic experiences of the scientist contribute a great deal to type and form of questions he may ask, as also to the kinds of tentative answers to these questions (hypotheses) that he might provide. Some scientists may perceive an interesting pattern in what may merely, seem a jumble of facts to the common man.

The history of science is full of instances of discoveries made just because the ‘right’ person happened to make the ‘right’ observation owing to his characteristic life-history and exposure to a unique mosaic of events. Personal life-histories are a factor in determining the kinds of a person’s perception and conception and this factor may in turn direct him to certain hypotheses quite readily.

An illustration of such individual perspectives in social sciences may be seen in the work of Thorstein Veblen whom Merton describes as a sociologist with a keen eye for the unusual and paradoxical.

A product of an isolated Norwegian community, Veblen lived at a time when the capitalistic system was barely subjected to any criticism. His own community background was replete with derivational experiences attributable to the capitalist system.

Veblen being an outsider, was able to look at the capitalist economic system more objectively and with dispassionate detachment. Veblen was thus strategically positioned to attack the fundamental concepts and postulates of classical economics.

He was an alien who could bring a different experience to bear upon the economic world. Consequently, he made penetrating analyses of society and economy which have ever since profoundly influenced social science.

(2) Analogies are often a fountainhead of valuable hypotheses. Students of sociology and political science in the course of their studies would have come across analogies wherein society and state are compared to a biological organism, the natural law to the social law, thermodynamics to social dynamics, etc. such analogies, notwithstanding the fact that analogies as a class suffer from serious limitations, do provide certain fruitful insight which formulated as hypotheses stimulate and guide inquiries.

One of the recent orientations to hypotheses formulation is provided by cybernetics, the communication models now so well entrenched in the social science testify to the importance of analogies as a source of fruitful hypotheses. The hypothesis that similar human types or activities may be found occupying the same territory was derived from plant ecology.

When the hypothesis was borne out by observations in society, the concept of segregation as it is called in plant ecology was admitted into sociology. It has now become an important idea in sociological theory. Such examples may be multiplied.

In sum, analogy may be very suggestive but care needs to be taken not to accept models from other disciplines without a careful scrutiny of the concepts in terms of their applicability to the new frame of reference in which they are proposed to be deployed.

(3) Hypotheses may rest also on the findings of other studies. The researcher on the basis of the findings of other studies may hypothesize that similar relationship between specified variables will hold good in the present study too. This is a common way of researchers who design their study with a view of replicating another study conducted in a different concrete context or setting.

It was said that many a study in social science is exploratory in character, i.e., they start without explicit hypotheses, the findings of such studies may be formulated as hypotheses for more structured investigations directed at testing certain hypotheses.

(4) An hypothesis may stem from a body of theory which may afford by way of logical deduction, the prediction that if certain conditions are present, certain results will follow. Theory represents what is known; logical deductions from this constitute the hypotheses which must be true if the theory was true.

Dubin aptly remarks, “Hypothesis is the feature of the theoretical model closest to the ‘things observable’ that the theory is trying to model.” Merton illustrates this function of theory with his customary felicity. Basing his deductions on Durham’s theoretic orientation, Merton shows how hypotheses may be derived as deductions from theoretic system.

(1) Social cohesion provides psychic support to group members subjected to acute stresses and anxieties.

(2) Suicide rates are functions of unrelieved anxieties to which persons are subjected.

(3) Catholics have greater social cohesion than protestants.

(4) Therefore, lower suicide rates should be expected among Catholics than among protestants.

If theories purport to model the empirical world, then there must be a linkage between the two. This linkage is to be found in the hypotheses that mirror the propositions of the theoretical model.

It may thus appear that the points of departure vis-a-vis hypotheses-construction are in two opposite directions:

(a) Conclusions based on concrete or empirical observations lead through the process of induction to more abstract hypotheses and

(b) The theoretical model through the process of logical deduction affords more concrete hypotheses.

It may be well to bear in mind, however, that although these two approaches to hypotheses formulation seem diametrically opposed to each other, the two points of departure, i.e., empirical, observations and the theoretical structure, represent the poles of a continuum and hypotheses lie somewhere in the middle of this continuum.

Both these approaches to hypotheses-construction have proved their worth. The Chicago School in American sociology represents a strong empirical orientation whereas the Mertonian and Parsonian approach is typified by a stress on theoretic models as initial bases for hypotheses-construction. Hence hypotheses can be deductively derived from theoretic models.

(5) It is worthy of note that value-orientation of the culture in which a science develops may furnish many of its basic hypotheses.

That certain hypotheses and not others capture the attention of scientists or occur to them in particular societies or culture may well be attributed to the cultural emphases. Goode and Hatt contend that the American emphasis upon personal happiness had had considerable effect upon social science in that country.

The phenomenon of personal happiness has been studied in great detail. In every branch of social science, the problem of personal happiness came to occupy a position meriting central focus. Happiness has been correlated with income, education, occupation, social class, and so on. It is evident that the culture emphasis on happiness has been productive of a very wide range of hypotheses for the American social science.

Folk-wisdom prevalent in a culture may also serve as source of hypotheses. The sum and substance of the discussion is aptly reflected in Larrabee’s remark that the ideal source of fruitful and relevant hypotheses is a fusion of two elements: past experience and imagination in the disciplined mind of the scientist.